Australian ISP Argues For BitTorrent Users 207
taucross writes "Australian ISP iiNet is making a very bold move. They are asking the court to accept that essentially, BitTorrent cannot be used to distribute pirated content because a packet does not represent a substantial portion of the infringing material. They are also hedging their bets purely on the strength of the movie studios' 'forensic' evidence. This ruling will go straight to the heart of Australia's copyright law. At last, an ISP willing to stand up for its customers! Let's hope we have a technically-informed judge."
Wow (Score:5, Funny)
Terrible news! (Score:4, Funny)
One packet per customer, sorry folks.
Shut Down All Possible Ways To Break Laws... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Terrible news! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:In that case... (Score:1, Funny)
Right, but they are patented. [theonion.com] :)
Re:Wow (Score:1, Funny)
What does slashdot have to do with shambleses?
Re:SO if I (Score:5, Funny)
I think I had that quest in WoW
Re:SO if I (Score:5, Funny)
My head just exploded because I can only think in terms of car analogies.
Re:SO if I (Score:5, Funny)
apology accepted
Re:SO if I (Score:4, Funny)
Actually, for a while I ran a modded bittornado client that deliberately would never upload more than 10% of the torrent to any one IP for expressly this purpose. It also lied to the tracker about my ratio for additional deniability.
Not that I thought I'd get away with it, but I figured that if I was that screwed, it'd be amusing to have my lawyer whip out the client source in court showing that I couldn't have supplied anyone with a complete copy, that my actual transfer was substantially different than what the tracker showed, and thus any evidence they had could not show a complete infringement.
Then I got a real job.
I smell a technical loophole in this... (Score:4, Funny)
the downloader [is violating] the reproduction right by fixing the transitory data stream to a medium on his computer.
Allow me to conjecture wildly, and see where that takes me.
From the {RI,MP}AA's point of view, there are two steps missing: "???" and "Lost profit!"
It would be interesting to see how this plays out in court. Maybe that's a way to be a law-abiding citizen while still getting Free Shit (tm)... otherwise, there's always Jamendo :D